Greg Burch wrote:
> <> Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a distinct lack of
>morality in the conception of the foreign policy of the United States.(snip)
> Last night, an unmistakable
>line was drawn between things that are good and right and things that are
>evil. Although it was done in a distinctly American way in a distinctly
>American voice, the call went out to the world to make a clear-cut choice.
There are a number of smaller clear-cut choices that must be made in order to make the larger choice President Bush has requested in his focused and erudite speech. Whether it is an ideological voice of value that drives the choices, what is missing from the podium is realization of the lack of diversity in America. As Americans, we talk around liberty in practicing, accepting and understanding all religions beliefs. Herein, claiming "God" as the highest value we trust, counters the essential moral behavior necessary in acknowledging the diverse religions within this country who do not all practice "God" as a "he." What would it have been like if the closing remarks of Bush’s speech last night reference not one religious value (God as he), but to have included all religious and moral beliefs the support peace in his prayer. It may seem like a minor issue considering the larger scope of the playing field, but I believe it is an essential one.
A government cannot just make a clear-cut choice without considering the diversity of its countrypeople. Certainly, it is a basic matter of choosing peace and cooperation over violent terrorism; however let’s not forget, for example, the American Muslims, and those who are being ostracized today, not to mention the many other individuals who feel like outsiders.
>(snip)George W. Bush stood
>up in front of the world last night and condemned a way of thinking -- a
>coherent and for many people appealing world-view -- as fundamentally
>*wrong*. Let this be a return to the core values of the Enlghtenment upon
>which the American Republic was founded -- and let those values now be seen
>as universally applicable, and we will indeed have seen a "pivotal moment in
>history."
Throughout the assured voice of the President in appealing to the world-view in regards to right and wrong, I would have appreciated a solidly-stated and confident recognition of American's mistakes, as all governments have made mistakes in learning how to communicate with the world, and a sincere apology to anyone in the world that our government has offended. A sign of our willingness to develop a better understanding of the culture throughout the world in setting an example and asking others to do the same.
(snip)
> <> On a finer scale, Tony Blair's presence in the House last night, and
>Bush's simple, heartfelt "thank you for coming, friend," provides a hard
>blow against the anti-American Europhiles in England.
This was just one of the many, many highlights in Bush's speech. It was a moment of deep appreciation of Blair and Britain. What a heart-warming moment in history. After all, it was a treacherous battle we fought in claiming our independent voice from Britain.
><> Consider the confused but dangerous yammering of the "anti-globalists."
>Where do they stand?
One of the strongest and highly supported cultural movements in the world is anit-globalism. Now there is no choice for this movement but to think outside the animosity toward world trade, corporatism, and homogenous logo designs. It seems that its current stance is holding neutral buoyancy – neither rising to the occasion nor decending from the issues. Let’s watch.
Thanks Greg for your post.
>Now, for some coffee.
I’m a two-cupper a week, so I have to wait to the weekend to have mine.
Natasha
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:54 MDT